1
1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2 NEW JERSEY STATE PLANNING COMMISSION
3
4 :
In the Matter of: :
5 :
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION :
6 COMMITTEE :
:
7
8
Computer-aided transcript of the public
9 meeting taken stenographically in the
above-entitled matter before LINDA A. MAHONEY,
10 a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the
State of New Jersey, at the Building of
11 Community Affairs, 101 South Broad Street,
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 on Wednesday, April
12 30, 2003 commencing at 9:00 a.m.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES
22 824 WEST STATE STREET, TRENTON, NJ 08618
23 (609) 989-9199 1-800-368-7652
24 (FAX) (609) 989-1607
25 http:\\www.renziassociates.com
2
1 H E L D B E F O R E:
2 JIM LEWIS, Transportation
3 SUSAN WEBER, Transportation
4 DAN REYNOLDS, DAG
5 ROBERTA LANG, Agriculture
6 JOHN ESKILSON, Municipal Officer
7 ADAM ZELLNER, Office of Smart Growth
8 EDWARD McKENNA, Chair
9 BILL PURDIE, Environmental Protection
10 DANIEL LEVINE, Treasury
11 VANESSA ZOE MARTIN
12 DAVID FISHER
13 PAUL DRAKE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 I N D E X
2
3
4
5 WITNESS PAGE
6 Public Meeting 4
7
8
9 E X H I B I T S
10
11
12 No. DESCRIPTION PAGE
13 None
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
1 MR. McKENNA: Good morning,
2 everyone. I'll call the meeting to order. I'm
3 Edward McKenna, member of the Committee
4 substituting for Michelle Byers. I anticipate
5 they'll arrive about 11 o'clock. If we can go
6 right to the agenda. Obviously, we'll reserve
7 the Chair's remarks until Michelle gets here.
8 Any comments from the public at this juncture?
9 All right. If not, we'll move onto, I think,
10 the Bloomingdale complaint, I think Adam is
11 going to address that and he's on his way and
12 he's not here yet.
13 MR. DRAKE: That's fine. There were
14 representatives from the town. They indicated
15 they would be here. Their planner, Jason
16 Sasler (pho) and two other representatives,
17 Steve Ward and their attorney, Jeff Surenian.
18 I don't see them here yet.
19 MISS LANG: Did they not think they
20 weren't on the agenda until 10:15?
21 MR. McKENNA: We'll pick back up at
22 10:00.
23 MR. DRAKE: I don't want to mislead
24 them in terms of time frames.
25 MR. McKENNA: Who's going to handle
5
1 the report on the rules?
2 MR. DRAKE: Vanessa.
3 MR. PURDIE: Adam is going to start,
4 but if you're desperate.
5 MR. McKENNA: Some members have time
6 constraints and I don't want to push this past
7 noon.
8 MR. HARRISON: The legislative
9 package is going to be introduced. A component
10 of that is going to tie in some of the
11 municipal tools to the plan endorsement
12 process. One of the things we're trying to do
13 is, picking up something John has been saying,
14 if you do these things, participate in plan
15 endorsement, there ought to be a source at the
16 end. One of the better ways to write
17 legislature is if you do X, this is the
18 questions. What we're then trying to do with
19 that and what we want to do is set up one basic
20 process so that Ed can turn it over to Adam at
21 this point. So depending on what the tools
22 are, you don't have to do a different process
23 or to get certain benefit for private funding
24 programs that you enter the plan endorsement
25 process. That takes care of it further down
6
1 the road. You want to apply for certain
2 funding, you can. What we're trying to do with
3 the rules, and then I will turn it over to
4 Adam, is to have the cross acceptance rules of
5 the plan endorsement rules fit with that
6 picture.
7 In keeping with the time frame, we
8 want the results to be in place at the time of
9 the next preliminary plan, revised early next
10 year. We want to make sure all the pieces work
11 together. We're thinking about the legislative
12 package, otherwise changing with Smart Growth,
13 initiate with rules, come together early next
14 year as adopted legislature, adopted rules and
15 you'll be off and running with the cross
16 acceptance process. I'll turn it over to Adam
17 and I'll return.
18 MR. ZELLNER: We've talked all along
19 about formalizing the process, for example,
20 where the very data layers are coming together
21 from different defendants. How that practice
22 will then translate back to our partners in
23 local government, counties, municipalities and
24 legislature.
25 The basic outline is we need to
7
1 talk to the other departments, keeping a time
2 schedule. What we're talking about is looking
3 at these different data layers and having them
4 come back to us so that finally, by the end of
5 the summer, DEP is in a process now, the Big
6 Map has been taken down. It's going through
7 the IPR comments and also making corrections to
8 the map based on new information, et cetera.
9 Figure that will take until the end of the
10 summer, September, October. We'll have
11 completed county meetings and have all comments
12 from county meetings put together and DOT will
13 have its comments closed on it's cap, 10-year
14 cap budget. We will take all of those comments
15 and bring them back to the Office of Smart
16 Growth. Compile them by county. Look at the
17 data layers and then begin to have a
18 conversation with the different counties and
19 municipalities about what's out there. What
20 their concerns are. What's still not accurate,
21 et cetera.
22 Based on that we would anticipate
23 coming back out with a preliminary plan based
24 on the comments from municipalities and
25 counties and feedback from State agencies to
8
1 mail out sometime in late November, early
2 December, I guess it would be. And then to
3 formally begin the cross acceptance process in
4 early March. That would do two things in
5 seeing this come together.
6 MR. FISHER: After the end of the
7 summer, we'll have the meetings with the
8 counties?
9 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. We provide that
10 data. We need to work that out technically.
11 We do that. We would envision both in sort of
12 a format and base the State plan map with clear
13 overlays that you can see what DEP, what
14 Agriculture appropriates, what DOT appropriates
15 on the agenda. And then take comments back
16 from the counties and municipalities.
17 Counties, of course, still begin our
18 negotiating -- we go hand in hand. Based on
19 those comments, we would pull that all back
20 together and that would be the basis for
21 completing the interim map. So what you've
22 done is allowed the State agencies to give the
23 feedback. Then we to talk to the counties and
24 municipalities about what that feedback has
25 been like. Complete an interim map plan that
9
1 would go with that. Send it out and formally
2 begin the cross acceptance process so that
3 everybody has a say at the table and then we
4 would go through that process.
5 All of the rules that Bill is
6 talking about, let me apologize for coming
7 late, budget testimony and reporters. Drives
8 me crazy. We will be taking feedback from all
9 sorts of folks over the next coming weeks about
10 this process and we still need to talk to the
11 agencies about what format their data is going
12 to come back in.
13 So this is the beginning, but what
14 I wanted people to understand is this all ties
15 together with what Bill is trying to do. To
16 get us to a place that we can move into cross
17 acceptance and this data at a reasonable pace
18 and whereby we can work with our counties and
19 municipalities and State legislatures at making
20 sure it's top and bottom up together. What
21 comes out of the process is a careful balance
22 from the State's priorities, the local
23 priorities and we come together in a comprise
24 on both.
25 That's what we envision. This is
10
1 rough at this point. We are still talking
2 again to the State agencies about this. This
3 is what we're prepared for and my hope is by
4 the Planning Commission time, we'll announce a
5 process much more detailed and subject to
6 comments open for debate and everything else,
7 and that is my hope.
8 MR. ESKILSON: The notion of cross
9 acceptance with the State agencies has been
10 pushed to the front end. This notion of cross
11 acceptance with State agencies, what you just
12 described, seems that's front loaded at this
13 point.
14 MR. ZELLNER: We want their data as
15 quickly as possible. We would then share that
16 back out to the county and municipality in
17 discussion -- we don't want to take the data,
18 create a map and send it out and wait for
19 comments. That would create a long process
20 when we got out there. So what we need to do
21 is take in data and have a conversation, once
22 it's together, okay? Based on Agriculture's
23 meeting, that's what they did, and DEP, this is
24 what came out with of those meetings. This is
25 right. Do we have the basic set up here.
11
1 Correct. One more to time get feedback and go
2 out with a preliminary plan that would be
3 presumably pretty close in balance between
4 departments and locals. It would be created in
5 harmony with both. That's the idea.
6 MR. McKENNA: Sounds like a faster
7 process and quicker process.
8 MR. ZELLNER: I think it would be.
9 Now, this is preliminary, open for discussion.
10 I have not talked to our State agencies about
11 this, but I wanted to talk about what Bill's
12 talking about. Inevitably you all have
13 questions that lead back to the process.
14 MR. HARRISON: I'm going to repeat
15 Adam's caveat. Vanessa is going through where
16 we are now, the 2004 Rule Proposal based on the
17 input we've already gotten, plus internal
18 discussions. But as we talk to the other
19 departments and agencies about the process,
20 they may have other thoughts that will lead us
21 to refine the words we're talking about. The
22 most important part of this is that they have
23 fully brought into the process, ultimately what
24 is essential for when we do cross acceptance,
25 when we do plan endorsement, to make that an
12
1 expeditious process. If the State agencies are
2 already comfortable, they are going to be
3 getting the information they need. That I know
4 that many facilitate, they are being able to
5 review that information and not say oh, we also
6 need information on endangered species. Why
7 didn't someone ask for that. That will be
8 something up front. Whatever the issue will
9 be.
10 What we want to do is cross
11 acceptance, as you have been saying over many
12 meetings, to greatly streamline the process,
13 the primary goal of the rules. There will be
14 roughly a year period from the release of the
15 preliminary plan until the adoption of the
16 final plan. That is part of the cross
17 acceptance process that will be interrelated
18 with plan endorsement. So a town isn't going
19 through cross acceptance, or a group of towns,
20 and then start all over again with plan
21 endorsement. What they will be doing is they
22 will be able to see, they will have what they
23 need to do for cross acceptance. What they
24 will do for plan endorsement. As they go
25 through cross acceptance, they will be able to
13
1 have their consultants, their employees,
2 whoever is doing the work for them also start
3 addressing plan endorsement in a relatively
4 short order.
5 After the new State plan is
6 adopted, we will be able to move ahead with
7 plan endorsement with them and not have that be
8 a lengthy process that they are starting from
9 square one and it's two years later before they
10 get to an endorsed plan. What we're setting up
11 in terms of the benefits that accrue, as you
12 progress through plan endorsement, you will get
13 additional-- again, you're eligible for
14 everything once your plan is fully endorsed.
15 That's the basic overview of what we're trying
16 to accomplish here.
17 As Adam said, we want to sit down
18 with the other agencies and make sure they are
19 comfortable with the process and buy into the
20 process as well as getting substantive
21 information to get that out to counties and
22 municipalities and make sure the rule proposal
23 fits with that and is at least close enough to
24 a final product. So we're not going to have to
25 re-propose the rule because of substantive
14
1 changing. And all that's happening in the next
2 month.
3 MR. ESKILSON: As part of this
4 process through the rule process or the
5 legislative package, do you anticipate
6 clarifying the role of the county's strategic
7 plans and regional strategic plans and what
8 their role in the county agencies are,
9 particularly with respect to the implementation
10 of regional plans and how they relate to local
11 plans?
12 MR. HARRISON: One of the things we
13 don't want to do in particular in the
14 legislation, in the rules, to design a
15 particular path. Because I suspect different
16 counties are going to want to approach things
17 differently and we don't want to be tied to
18 it. What we've been able to do is to give
19 preference to counties coming in where that's
20 not happening. Give preference to regional
21 groups and municipalities and set things up in
22 every way possible to encourage counties. And,
23 if not, that regional group and municipalities
24 -- we are taking a regional approach, not just
25 a municipality by municipality for 566
15
1 municipalities.
2 MR. ESKILSON: One additional
3 question with respect to the State agencies as
4 part of this. Will there be additional
5 guidance or further guidance on how this data
6 and the plan is implemented by the State
7 agencies? I understand, to your credit, we're
8 talking about making it more clear, what the
9 benefits to municipality and county government
10 are. The other side, the regular industry
11 side. How this information is to be utilized
12 by State agencies? Will that be something
13 recent that's coming in with DOT about a
14 defined Smart Growth product being pulled from
15 the pipeline for Smart Growth review? No
16 criteria products are pulled because someone
17 ought to go through the process. We ought to
18 make sure, we better define the process from a
19 regulatory standpoint as part of this
20 exercise. Are we talking about that?
21 MR. HARRISON: Let me distinguish
22 two situations. There is stuff that is
23 currently in the pipeline. There is no good
24 answer how that should be addressed. It isn't
25 a good answer to say all of that should go
16
1 ahead in the incident like DOT making a
2 commitment in a number of years into the
3 future. It makes sense. We're not stopping
4 the world today until we figure out where we're
5 going. I am largely focusing on the world as
6 it will be better than dealing with what stuff
7 in the pipeline and what should be pulled back
8 and what should go ahead and how that should be
9 determined.
10 But in terms of moving ahead in the
11 future, one of the key things of tying this to
12 plan endorsement is once there is an endorsed
13 plan, the State agency decision-making should
14 be tied to that. If the endorsed plan
15 indicates that such and such, a road should
16 have such and such improvements. One, it's in
17 the endorsed plan. That should be happening.
18 If those are not in the endorsed plan, that
19 should not be happening. In the reverse of
20 what I suspected will be the normal situation,
21 if DOT really thinks that certain road
22 improvements are necessary and they are not
23 being reflected in a plan proposed for
24 endorsement, that's when they should be
25 bringing it up. Not two years later, saying
17
1 we're going to fund it even though you don't
2 want it. It's part of the plan endorsement
3 process and visa versa. If municipalities or
4 counties have proposed road improvements, they
5 don't think it's a good idea for whatever
6 reason, that should be brought up in the plan
7 endorsement process, not in battle of funding
8 two years after that.
9 MR. McKENNA: For clarification
10 purposes, if you're a municipality and are
11 interested in plan endorsement, it sounds as
12 though you shouldn't be going in alone. If the
13 county is not ready to move forward, it would
14 be an intelligent decision to get together with
15 other municipalities to form an alliance and
16 move forward and apply for enforcement.
17 MR. HARRISON: The Office of Smart
18 Grout would help you and sit down with the
19 other towns. You should be sitting down with
20 your three neighbors to the north; same road
21 corridor.
22 MR. ZELLNER: There is a recognition
23 through the process that some municipalities
24 would be here. Others sources up here in terms
25 of beginning and ending. We definitely want to
18
1 be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
2 Municipalities are moving forward; we don't
3 want to slow them down. What we're doing in
4 Cumberland is a good example. They're far
5 ahead. There's some in between and behind. We
6 are moving simultaneously with them.
7 MR. McKENNA: Any other questions of
8 Bill?
9 MR. ZELLNER: I want to start out by
10 apologizing to the members here for not getting
11 you information as fast as we wanted. We had a
12 Budget Committee hearing that moved up and
13 threw us off. I see the smile over there. So
14 it threw us off a little bit. Michelle is
15 unable to be here this morning, as well as
16 Tim. So I wanted to just give two reports and
17 I would request that the Committee at this time
18 take no action on the reports. First beginning
19 with Princeton. I apologize because I have not
20 had a chance to sit down with Princeton as I
21 promised I would do before the report was
22 issued. It simply was a matter of timing with
23 other budget testimony. So I will be sitting
24 down sometime in the next week with Princeton
25 to discuss the recommendations you have in your
19
1 report, which is for Princeton going forward
2 with plan endorsement.
3 We are going to work with Princeton
4 to look at the region and who it would make
5 sense to move forward with. Coming from all
6 angles. Sitting down with them shortly to work
7 out a group and make some recommendations as
8 who they should be working with. At such time
9 I will go ahead and get the record and move
10 action at that point. I want to give a
11 progress report on where we were.
12 Obviously, if the folks from
13 Bloomingdale want to say something to the
14 Chair. I sat down with Skylands CLEAN and
15 their representatives last week and with the
16 town of Bloomingdale this week at the meetings,
17 Paul Drake and representatives from COAH. I
18 see Maureen here today. They were at both
19 meetings to discuss what Bloomingdale is doing
20 with it's affordable housing obligations with
21 respect to protection of a minor map amendment
22 and basically a picture of what was going on.
23 It was also a result of a complaint from
24 Skylands CLEAN that Bloomingdale was attempting
25 to do building outside of the center and we've
20
1 met with both groups and we think that there is
2 some willingness to work together and I want to
3 commend the town and Skylands CLEAN and
4 representatives. I'd like in two weeks to hear
5 back from the town about questions we have
6 relative to COAH and relative to their making
7 sure they continue to keep certification.
8 I was going to then talk to the
9 representatives from Skylands CLEAN about
10 sitting down together with the town and looking
11 at the problems. What we both want for the
12 town is that they meet their COAH obligation,
13 become protected. And we protect as much as
14 the environmental sensitive areas that we can.
15 Postpone any action to give me an opportunity
16 to hear back from the town. Based on our
17 meetings and make that proposal to the folks
18 from Skylands CLEAN to make a decision with all
19 players from the table. If not, we will move
20 this back for the PIC agenda for decision.
21 MR. McKENNA: Do you think it would
22 be inappropriate to hear from the
23 representative or should we open the floor?
24 MR. ZELLNER: I don't think it would
25 be inappropriate, if there's representatives.
21
1 MR. ESKILSON: They are here.
2 MR. McKENNA: Yes. I thought I saw
3 somebody walk in.
4 MR. ESKILSON: Can we wait until the
5 municipal representatives come in?
6 MR. ZELLNER: They are scheduled to
7 be here.
8 MR. McKENNA: Wait until they get
9 here.
10 MR. ZELLNER: Continue on down to
11 the county Smart Growth plan applications I
12 have.
13 MR. FISHER: On the Princeton
14 report, we have the April 7 memo from you and
15 is that the direction in which this seems to be
16 going? It looks like there would be an
17 extension of their designation number,
18 September, 2005, and then they'd be encouraged
19 to come back?
20 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. That is where we
21 are leaning with them. And we'll sit down and
22 see who they are pursuing that plan with and
23 that has a direct effect on what's going on.
24 MR. FISHER: I saw in some of the
25 other terms, this one site seems to be on the
22
1 edge of Princeton. The land owner claims they
2 are adjacent to significant development in
3 Montgomery. Are they within a sewer service
4 area?
5 MR. ZELLNER: I do not know if the
6 third site is. Do you know?
7 MR. FISHER: I know we always see
8 towns for them to looking at things in
9 connection with adjoining municipalities. In
10 some respects it does make sense or that a need
11 could be accommodated with that site if it
12 bears a relationship with the adjoining
13 municipality.
14 MR. McKENNA: You can't hear?
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't
16 hear.
17 MR. McKENNA: Whether or not the
18 area in question was in a sewer service area
19 and the answer was we do not know at this
20 juncture and there was a subsequent comment
21 that if there was it might be an appropriate
22 area for development.
23 MR. FISHER: I didn't know what our
24 staff had been doing to examine the possibility
25 that the outlined site might bear a relation to
23
1 development that exists in Montgomery
2 Township. Some of the materials I've read, it
3 seems although it's on the outskirts of
4 Princeton adjacent to a fairly high density
5 development in Montgomery Township.
6 MR. ESKILSON: I think the Princeton
7 planning director is here. Rather quick
8 answer.
9 LEE SOLO: (pho). Yeah. Lee Solo.
10 Planning. The question is whether or not -- I
11 assume we're talking about the site that
12 borders Montgomery Township. It's within the
13 sewer service area and I believe--
14 MR. McKENNA: Is this a question
15 specific to the issue?
16 MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to answer
17 his question. Bryce Thompson, and I own the
18 land in question. At one of your previous
19 meetings you had a report showing that there
20 were no utilities and no transportation to this
21 site. We pointed it out. You people revised
22 the report. Princeton wouldn't have it wrong.
23 All utilities, not just sewer. There's sewer,
24 gas, electric, telephone, water and
25 transportation. At the same time, after having
24
1 recommendations, thinking there was nothing,
2 exactly the same recommendation, after you
3 found out there's everything and now we're
4 asking again, is there anything there. Give me
5 a break.
6 MR. ZELLNER: The question was
7 whether or not the actual property had sewer.
8 We did on get our answer and this is not about
9 whether it has roads, utility. Nor is it a
10 recommendation from our perspective about
11 zoning in Princeton. It is looking at
12 Princeton in a comprehensive view with some
13 other towns around it. Others pointed out this
14 is not just their development, pressure is
15 coming from four sides. We want to work with
16 Princeton and the other towns to look at where
17 it is that growth is occurring. Where it is
18 that they want growth to occur and where it is
19 that other towns have it occurring so we can
20 look at it instead of border by border, in a
21 more comprehensive picture.
22 MR. McKENNA: Is this a question on
23 specifically that issue?
24 MR. PFEIFFER: Ed Pfeiffer. I'm
25 from the Central Jersey Group of the Sierra
25
1 Club, cochair. There's a couple of things that
2 I wanted to bring up. I would like to get that
3 report that you're talking about. Is that in
4 progress right now or is that report finished?
5 MR. ZELLNER: We finalize once we
6 meet with the town itself. We have not had the
7 opportunity yet.
8 MR. PFIEFFER: I would like to get a
9 copy of that. How do I get that April 7 memo?
10 I'd like a copy of that as well. The other
11 thing is it's all well and good to talk about
12 whether there's sewer service. Our concern is
13 that it's Planning Area 5. Both that parcel
14 that was just discussed and the parcel that's
15 down south along Mount Lucas Road, that's an
16 environmentally sensitive area. It seems to me
17 that's within the whole area of State planning
18 right there to protect environmentally
19 sensitive land.
20 MR. ZELLNER: I'll only comment by
21 saying it is a PA5 and that's exactly why we
22 want to talk to Princeton and the other towns
23 in the group about what's going on there. This
24 is our first monitoring report done. This is
25 exactly the process that we envisioned in doing
26
1 these monitoring reports and making sure that
2 we look at the towns where they are growing and
3 what has changed around the towns and its
4 relationship to other towns and I can't stress
5 enough what you do in other towns effects this
6 town tremendously.
7 MR. McKENNA: You're going to
8 address plan endorsement and county Smart
9 Growth.
10 MR. ZELLNER: Interested to talk a
11 little bit about the Smart Growth.
12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Association
13 of New Jersey Environmental Commissions. I
14 wanted to reiterate what the gentleman from the
15 Sierra Club said. PA5 area, that could be
16 water, wetlands and boulder fields. It raises
17 two questions about it as to whether they
18 considered the need for looking, I think Adam
19 was addressing it, looking at the region only
20 as a whole and consider the need for housing
21 and where it would be appropriately located in
22 an area for in fill or development. That might
23 be more appropriate rather than environmentally
24 sensitive areas.
25 MR. ZELLNER: Thank you.
27
1 MR. McKENNA: Before we move on to
2 Smart Growth grants--
3 MR. ZELLNER: I wanted to give the
4 PIC an update as the Planning Commission, an
5 update for those who didn't see it. We just
6 announced the Monmouth County Shore Extra
7 Street Plan, 40 municipalities, and it studies
8 big DOT area. It studies from the Driscoll
9 Bridge south. If you take the Parkway all the
10 way down and look east and it's tying together
11 what we're calling Multimodal Transportation
12 Study. A new ferry service in the north and
13 some plans that are going on tying that
14 together with some of Routes 34, 35, 36, 17, 71
15 and 18. All right, I'm getting there. Tying
16 all those together, very successful and
17 enthusiastic. We are going to be working
18 closely with helping this grant become
19 abreast. The local government plans that's got
20 enthusiasm for the ferry service to what is
21 going on to the west. So that you see some
22 multimodal transportation operations. Train
23 line, coastline that runs down to the shore
24 connecting the shuttle service to the ferry so
25 that you have people's ability to move and all
28
1 of that while our planners will be working with
2 the towns themselves so that they can advance
3 through zoning and local land use and through
4 good planning efforts of the redevelopment
5 opportunities that may come before them.
6 Especially Keyport, wonderful downtown, ready
7 to be redeveloped. If done right, it has great
8 opportunities.
9 In addition, we went all the way up
10 north, loving our traffic that day into Bergen
11 County, and we announced Smart Future Grant for
12 two southern planning areas of Bergen. 20
13 municipalities that will tie together. Several
14 big plans that are going on in Bergen County,
15 Route 17 redevelopment opportunities, along
16 with the Secaucus Transfer Station opening,
17 along with some downtown transport villages in
18 Lyndhurst Arena redevelopment and Master Plan
19 from Meadowlands Commission. Seven or eight
20 major plans and efforts that are going on.
21 This grant will help complete an umbrella to
22 stitch that together and will tie in with
23 redevelopment in Lyndhurst and Rutherford and
24 other towns and Woodbridge with the Master Plan
25 for the county.
29
1 I wanted to give you all an
2 update. We will continue to announce these
3 coming straight through the other departments.
4 You guys have just been sent copies of this.
5 If anybody wants to ask questions about the
6 actual grants themselves, feel free. Give me a
7 call. I will add one more line. There are a
8 lot of lines that applied individually for
9 these grants. The staff works at putting it
10 together. I don't think some of the towns or
11 counties realized where there was such synergy
12 in some applications. The staff all have done
13 a great job looking at how we can do this and
14 make it more regionally. A great job. That is
15 it.
16 MR. McKENNA: I don't know that we
17 have anything else we need to cover other than
18 Bloomingdale.
19 MR. DRAKE: If I can say something.
20 We have shown this presentation to the Borough
21 and there's nothing we're going to unveil.
22 MR. McKENNA: I had shown it to the
23 Borough. It's appropriate for us to see it at
24 this point in light of the fact we're not going
25 to be doing anything that the Borough has not
30
1 seen.
2 MR. DRAKE: This is an overview of
3 what the issue is. So we can have broader
4 discussion on it. If you can't hear, I'll
5 speak up. This is a short Power Point
6 presentation on the Borough of Bloomingdale.
7 Just for information purposes, what you see is
8 a copy of the State plan map. Bloomingdale
9 Borough is located here. Sort of in the middle
10 of Passaic County. If you look at the westward
11 expansion of the red area, Planning Area 1,
12 Bloomingdale is on the cuff between Planning
13 Area 1 and 5. This is the Borough of
14 Bloomingdale right here in black. It follows
15 along this boundary here and one of the
16 prominent features you see in the Borough is of
17 the Norvin Green State Forest and I'll be
18 discussing the planning areas. Also Planning
19 Area 5 and 2. This is Planning Area 1 in
20 Bloomingdale. In the '99 plan of the Planning
21 Area 2 boundary consisted of areas seen here.
22 That area as adopted in the '92 plan was
23 Planning Area 2. Then in 1998 Bloomingdale was
24 designated as a town center.
25 The yellow is the Bloomingdale town
31
1 center boundary. It's neighbor, Wanaque town
2 center. As you can see, two centers that
3 border each other. In the 2001 plan that was
4 adopted there was a petition to change the
5 planning area designation from Planning Area
6 2. Again, in this area, to Planning Area 5.
7 In addition, Planning Area 2 was changed to 5,
8 even within the center boundary of the
9 Bloomingdale town center. And that was
10 requested based on environmental considerations
11 in the Bloomingdale Environmental Commission
12 supported by Skylands CLEAN and a host of other
13 environmental agencies. Equated to 660 acres,
14 which was changed from PA2 to PA5. And that's
15 this area.
16 We're here today to talk about the
17 Bloomingdale town center designated by the
18 State Planning Commission in 1998, February. I
19 talked to you about the planning area change
20 prior to the 2001 plan from PA2 to PA5. The
21 Borough was presently certified by COAH primary
22 inclusionary housing development project. They
23 have a PIA (pho) as part of the town center
24 designation. There was discussion when the
25 planning area changed regarding sewer boundary
32
1 to move it with the center boundary. And today
2 we're here to talk about dispute or discussion
3 area known as the horse farm presently zoned
4 for multifamily housing.
5 On the front part of the property
6 there's three units per acre and then the rear
7 part of the property zoned is one unit per
8 three acres. What was brought forward to the
9 State Planning Commission in a letter submitted
10 by Skylands CLEAN. It was an issue ongoing in
11 the township regarding the horse farm. 105
12 acre area of land that's outside of the center,
13 and I'll show you a map where it's located in
14 PA5. And proposed to change the zoning from
15 multifamily housing to multifamily senior
16 housing development and certainly in the
17 complaint letter, consistent with the center
18 designation and certainly the State plan and
19 the remedy, this is proposed by Skylands CLEAN
20 Group for the Planning Commission to designate
21 Bloomingdale as the town center.
22 Bloomingdale's position, again, is
23 discussed with them over several different
24 discussions and said they'd certainly enjoy
25 being a town center. They'd have a benefit
33
1 from it and value the opportunity for being a
2 town center and desire to be a town center.
3 The heart of the matter is
4 obviously when they do show up here, I imagine
5 in the very near couple minutes, regarding the
6 property shown as the horse farm and it really
7 is their position interwoven with their current
8 COAH plan imperative upon them to proactively
9 address sure fall predicated on recent land
10 open space purchases of a property known as the
11 Higgins-Peragalo and development of other
12 property part of the COAH plan. Due to the
13 Planning Board process, the amount of housing
14 units. So essentially what they feel is
15 there's now a short fall in their COAH plan and
16 they're trying to make up that short fall with
17 this rezoning of the horse farm.
18 MR. ESKILSON: Sorry to interrupt.
19 Did you say one of their inclusionary spaces
20 was acquired for open space with State funds?
21 MR. DRAKE: I believe so.
22 MR. ESKILSON: Inclusionary site
23 certified by COAH?
24 MR. DRAKE: The property known as
25 the Higgins-Peragalo site.
34
1 MR. ESKILSON: I'm not shooting the
2 messenger here.
3 MR. ZELLNER: I'll be honest. Pre
4 us having the ability to have the
5 communications, and a prime example, everybody
6 at the table, your outrage is perfectly
7 acceptable.
8 MR. DRAKE: These were approximately
9 three site locations for the COAH housing
10 inclusionary housing projects. This was the
11 property Ball tract. This is a project known
12 here, Woods Estates or the Mere (pho)
13 property. This is a property known as the
14 Higgins-Peragalo site. This property was
15 purchased by Pasaaic River Coalition as open
16 space.
17 MR. ESKILSON: I'm curious to know
18 when the municipality was advised that there
19 was negotiations for acquisition using State
20 funds of their inclusionary. Were they advised
21 at all or did they simply get a notice to the
22 assessor that title had transferred. I suspect
23 that may be the case and they supported the
24 acquisition of the site.
25 MR. DRAKE: I believe they were well
35
1 aware. Obviously, one of the issues or topics
2 of today's discussion. These were the three
3 COAH sites. We have had discussions with COAH,
4 as indicated by Adam, and certainly talking to
5 Maureen. It's clear that COAH's position was
6 that there is a need to amend their Fare Share
7 Plan. COAH has indicated based on MOA with the
8 commission will not cover and moderate housing
9 with the Office of Smart Growth and COAH on
10 this particular issue and others.
11 In terms of the Office of Smart
12 Growth, our findings of this sort of review in
13 our report of December 30, 2002, and there's
14 copies in the back, and we felt in our review
15 it's a very clear PA5. One of the goals is to
16 accommodate centers. It's also a goal to
17 protect the environmental resources through
18 large continuous tracts of land.
19 At the time of the report, only the
20 report by the Borough was prepared. That was
21 December. We recommended in that report,
22 should the rezoning be adopted, this action
23 would be inconsistent with the State plan
24 policy for Planning Area 5. Subsequently there
25 was an ordinance introduced in the last few
36
1 months by the municipality for the first
2 reading of the zoning to rezone the horse farm
3 and we have met with boroughs as well as with
4 Skylands CLEAN to discuss the various points of
5 view.
6 I'm showing these areal maps to
7 sort of give you a better picture of where
8 we're actually talking about. This is sort of
9 the entirety of the horse farm, approximately.
10 What they're proposing is to develope really
11 what's shown in blue in some fashion or
12 another, conservation easement area shown in
13 yellow. The entirety of the tract is about 105
14 acres. This is the location of the property of
15 Higgins-Peragalo. A site in inclusionary, the
16 site yielded approximately 25 COAH units that
17 now is purchased and certainly was intended to
18 remain as open space.
19 This is a property known as Mere
20 Estates. We do see folks from Skylands CLEAN
21 coming in. They have seen most of this
22 presentation. We're not showing anything new.
23 This is the Mere property. In terms of our
24 recommendation, one of our recommendation was
25 for the OSG implementation team to work to
37
1 refocus with the Borough, certainly to have
2 them have COAH objectives be met for low and
3 moderate housing and our aim is to focus on the
4 site of the sign. The Wanaque town center and
5 new civil center require that the State meets
6 the planning objective in the State plan and
7 that the town should also seek out other
8 opportunities to meet the objectives.
9 This is sort of the site. It's the
10 property known as the horse farm. As you can
11 see here in green, these are State delineated
12 wetlands, open water. Here, wetlands in the
13 back, more or less is the development site.
14 Actually, just the map, it was not on OLI and
15 then I think we're kind of -- I just wanted to
16 show you in relation to where this site sits in
17 relation to this boundary for the Wanaque town
18 center. This circle represents just a
19 five-minute walking distance from a typical
20 urban design standpoint, approximately 1,500 in
21 any direction. So if you pointed to this site,
22 you can see what the current relationships to
23 other points are.
24 Union Avenue here, this is Route
25 287 here and there's the interchange for Route
38
1 287. In this location down here you see the
2 town of Pompton Lakes. This is the Borough of
3 Wanaque and this is the Wanaque town center.
4 It's pretty much their Main Street area. This
5 street, again, is Pompton Turnpike or Greenwood
6 Avenue. This is Union Avenue. Pretty much
7 their site, as I said, sits right here. Point
8 of interest is that, you know, we've had
9 discussions with the town that in terms of
10 relationships from this site to the current
11 town center of the downtown Main Street area of
12 Bloomingdale, this site is pretty far removed.
13 It's actually three miles from the other side
14 of the town center. But should or would this
15 property be developed, it's more likely that
16 people will actually go into Wanaque town
17 center to shop and spend their money.
18 Right here on this site there's
19 actually a new location. It was a Food Town
20 Shopping Center that was built and there is a
21 McDonald's here and Union Avenue is sort of
22 continued and incrementally developed,
23 obviously. Perhaps going into the proximity of
24 287.
25 MR. FISHER: That's all part of the
39
1 Wanaque town center?
2 MR. DRAKE: Yes. Let me back up.
3 Again, on these were the three COAH house
4 sites. The question came up about Federal
5 Hill. Federal Hill is a larger geographic area
6 which really consists of -- obviously, you can
7 see the mountain range here. This entirety of
8 the area is known as Federal Hill. Consists of
9 several properties. One being the
10 Higgins-Peragalo, the other being the Mere
11 tract. This is another site over here, and as
12 I understand, the history of Federal Hill,
13 there was certainly history of archeological
14 remains. Obviously Native Americans used the
15 site. Some discussion of George Washington
16 during the Revolutionary War used the site as
17 an outlook for troops. So there's a large
18 history in this property.
19 So there is certainly a large
20 effort out there to look at one of the impacts
21 on Federal Hill and what are the
22 recommendations to preserve it in its entirety,
23 of a more natural area.
24 This site right here is the subject
25 site we're talking about. The horse farm. And
40
1 you can see it's relationship to the existing
2 center of Wanaque here and the Bloomingdale
3 center over here.
4 With that, going back and forth
5 with different aerials, that was at least a
6 brief summery. I still haven't seen -- I know
7 there was a lot of folks from Skylands CLEAN.
8 MR. BOSWELL: We saw residents
9 outside. I'm Kevin Boswell and I'm here on
10 behalf of the owner of the horse farm.
11 Procedurally, let me mention that for the
12 Skylands people, you were not here earlier and
13 you were not supposed to be, so that's not a
14 criticism. Our executive director reported
15 that at this point there are ongoing
16 discussions with your organization and
17 municipalities through the Office of Smart
18 Growth and that there are meetings planned over
19 the next several weeks in furtherance of those
20 discussions and we have been asked not to take
21 any action at this point in time, which I think
22 is the path that we're going to take.
23 I feel it's unfair to the Borough
24 to go much further at this point. What we're
25 going to say was rather than have a forum this
41
1 morning while there are discussion going on, if
2 you want to designate one person to act as the
3 spokesperson to give comments, that may be
4 appropriate. I don't think we want to go into
5 a whole discussion. It may be undermined, the
6 discussion taking place.
7 MISS O'HERN: (pho). Robin O'Hern.
8 Director of Skylands CLEAN. Many of the people
9 are here just here as residents. So I don't
10 want to presume to speak for them. Would they
11 be able to speak on their own?
12 MR. McKENNA: Robin, in response to
13 that question, speaking to the residents in
14 light of the fact that there will be further
15 discussions and there is no recommendation
16 pending at this point, prior to such a
17 recommendation coming before this Committee, I
18 don't want to discuss them. They may feel
19 differently after a recommendation comes forth
20 and often times what I find is those
21 discussions get out of hand in the alternative
22 in what could perspectively be a possible
23 resolution of the issue.
24 MS. O'HERN: I didn't want the
25 Committee to feel that I was speaking on their
42
1 behalf.
2 MR. McKENNA: I understand. If
3 there's a particular resident that feels
4 aggrieved by what we're discussing, we're happy
5 to listen to their point. As far as the
6 procedure, in the alternative, just having
7 participated in such proceedings before, I
8 think as long as there are ongoing discussion
9 at the Office of Smart Growth, we don't want to
10 do anything to undermine those discussions.
11 As indicated by the executive
12 director earlier, there's been no action
13 today. But certainly we would be willing to
14 listen to a spokesperson on behalf of an
15 organization, provided they understand the
16 confines within which they will be discussing
17 the issue.
18 Just so you know, we had a
19 presentation earlier that you have already
20 seen. Obviously there are representatives of
21 Skylands here that we have indicated that they
22 can have a person offer some comments to us
23 this morning. However, it was reported by Adam
24 that there are ongoing discussions through the
25 Office of Smart Growth with both the
43
1 municipality and with Skylands and recognizing
2 that fact, he has asked us not to take any
3 action at this point. We would be willing to
4 listen to a representative of your organization
5 chose to designate such an individual and then,
6 again, we're happy to listen to a resident,
7 perhaps not all and representatives of
8 Skylands, if they wish to address us this
9 morning.
10 However, what we don't want to do
11 is undermine the ongoing discussions that are
12 taking place with the Office of Smart Growth.
13 Is that a reasonable approach to this?
14 MISS FRY: (pho). I'm Wilma Fry.
15 I'm representing the Skylands CLEAN Coalition
16 and New Jersey Conservation. I believe there
17 are representatives of several other
18 organizations here this morning as well who
19 have come to address this issue. They are not
20 residents of Bloomingdale, but we have views
21 about this matter regarding the State plan and
22 we would like the opportunity to, you know,
23 make some statements.
24 MR. McKENNA: Just for clarity
25 sake. The thing that concerns me. And I'm
44
1 just one person up here, I'll defer to the
2 collective judgment of the Committee, is that
3 before we get into in-depth discussion, we do
4 not have a recommendation before us and there
5 are ongoing discussions. I would feel rather
6 uncomfortable going into such an in-depth
7 discussion without knowing what we're being
8 asked to do. If recommendation A comes back,
9 certainly I think your comments would be
10 appropriate as to what that recommendation is.
11 In the alternative, if it's
12 recommendation B. Then your feelings may
13 perhaps be different and rather than us
14 listening to comments on something that we
15 don't know what we're going to be dealing with,
16 I would prefer to save those discussions until
17 we've had a perspective resolution. Or, in the
18 alternative, if there is not a resolution as it
19 is now presented and certainly those comments
20 would be appropriate at that time.
21 MISS FRY: I think that in some
22 cases comments may help shape the form of the
23 discussion or they could possibly do so. Also,
24 I think a lot of people have spent a lot of
25 time and effort to come down here to this
45
1 meeting. To simply deny people the opportunity
2 to speak after they have spent, you know, four
3 or five hours of their day or more to get here,
4 it's rather frustrating.
5 MR. TIERNEY: Jack Tierney. I'm a
6 resident of Bloomingdale. Between now and when
7 you're going to supposedly allow the other
8 folks to speak to you, are you going to meet
9 with the Mayor and counsel of Bloomingdale?
10 MR. McKENNA: Yes.
11 MR. TIERNEY: I don't you think it's
12 appropriate. We should at least have an
13 opportunity to speak to you before you all meet
14 and you speak with the Mayor and counsel. When
15 are we going to get an opportunity to talk to
16 you the same way they are going to talk to
17 you?
18 MR. ZELLNER: I can address this. I
19 actually met with Skylands CLEAN and
20 representatives. First I sat down with them
21 last week. They are the complainants in this
22 case. They are the folks that brought the
23 issue. I met with them and after that meeting
24 I met with the town yesterday. We have come
25 back with thoughts that the town is going to
46
1 discuss and we are discussing with Skylands
2 and, in fact, we'd like to do the meeting
3 together if we could. Moving very quickly.
4 We're on a time line. Discussions are to
5 happen within two weeks. There are
6 time-sensitive issues relative to this case. I
7 don't want there to be a misunderstanding.
8 Just going to meet with the town afterwards.
9 This is really an attempt to work with both
10 groups to see if there is a resolution, if
11 there can be with the complainant.
12 What I'd like to avoid is you folks
13 speaking with other people and then having it
14 so locked up that when the residents are going
15 to speak, it's too late. Their minds have
16 already been made and that's not right.
17 That's why you're at the first
18 stage of the planning. This is the
19 Implementation Committee. You will have a
20 chance to address the Committee comments at the
21 Committee. Then the Committee will also make a
22 recommendation to the Planning Commission at
23 which time there is a second opportunity to
24 come forward.
25 MR. TIERNEY: Who goes first?
47
1 MR. ZELLNER: In what sense?
2 MR. TIERNEY: It's very important.
3 MR. ZELLNER: I don't understand
4 your question.
5 MR. TIERNEY: Who speaks to you
6 folks or whoever you're talking about; who
7 speaks to them first?
8 MR. ZELLNER: We spoke with Skylands
9 CLEAN first. It was a scheduling matter. We
10 will speak to both the town and complainant and
11 the Skylands together at the next meeting, post
12 of our discussion two weeks from now. The idea
13 is to bring everybody to the table to get a
14 resolution before we can go forward.
15 MR. TIERNEY: One more question. We
16 all drove down here today, which is fine,
17 expecting more than we're going to get. What I
18 think you ought to do is put out an agenda the
19 next time you meet and say what's going to
20 happen at the meeting and who's going to be
21 allowed to do what and I think that would be
22 more productive if you did that.
23 MR. ZELLNER: We did put out an a
24 agenda. Third on the agenda. Right now what
25 I've asked is for the Committee not to make any
48
1 decisions today. But the discussion is going
2 forward. I wanted an opportunity to follow up
3 on my discussions with the town and Skylands.
4 It took us a while to get the groups together.
5 MR. ESKILSON: I think there is
6 room. There is a public comment period. I
7 don't think we necessarily, as a Committee --
8 not a public hearing on this matter. We don't
9 need to engage in lengthy discussion, nor do I
10 think that would be productive at this point.
11 It may, in fact, undermine some things going on
12 at State level. Perhaps we can provide some
13 time to hear comments.
14 MR. McKENNA: If you don't mind, Mr.
15 Tierney, just for a second. One of the things
16 that concerns me, and I can tell you I sat 14
17 years as a public official and 12 years as a
18 member of a Planning Board, this is somewhat
19 the gist of the situation where there is an
20 application filed, people show up and the
21 applicant says time out, we want to revise our
22 application possibly. I'm not saying that's
23 going to happen or not. It's inappropriate, in
24 my opinion, for the municipality in that
25 incident to effectively hold a public hearing
49
1 and receive comments on an application that may
2 not be moving forward. We do have a public
3 comment section. That would be the best area
4 to address it. I would ask you to recognize the
5 discussion that we've had already. We don't
6 want to cut anybody off. And coincidently, we
7 will have another event as well as the meeting
8 of the State Planning Commission when these
9 issues will be addressed.
10 Not to be redundant. As a Planning
11 Board Member, when I hear an application, and
12 they say actually we're going to possibly
13 withdraw this application or amend it, and then
14 people from the public say well, I came all the
15 way down here and I want to talk about this
16 application, and this may not be the
17 application. So we may be spending a half hour
18 or an hour and a half discussing something that
19 may not be what we are addressing. If it is,
20 there will be another opportunity. In many
21 instances, it is unproductive.
22 That doesn't mean that we won't
23 listen to people today. All it means is if
24 you're going to address comments, please
25 understand that's the format that we would like
50
1 to have those comments presented in.
2 MR. TIERNEY: I understand that and
3 that is practical. What I'd like to try to
4 avoid is people coming to kind of a conclusion
5 or getting information without the benefit of
6 both sides. That's my main purpose in speaking
7 today, that you hear both sides before you
8 reach some kind of a conclusion. If you hear a
9 very convincing argument from the other side,
10 it can be so conclusive that the other side
11 won't make much headway.
12 MR. McKENNA: That's a very
13 appropriate comment. Thank you.
14 MISS SMITH: Susan Smith. Counsel in
15 Bloomingdale. I have a question. The Planning
16 Board tonight is having a meeting on the horse
17 farm. Since there will be negotiations on the
18 density and so forth, would it be proper for
19 them to now maybe cancel this appearance at
20 this meeting tonight to go on anything that has
21 to do with this horse farm since this is now
22 being worked out between Skylands Clean, OSG
23 and the Borough?
24 MR. McKENNA: We can't tell you how
25 to run your Planning Board. In light of
51
1 discussion you're hearing today, for the
2 municipality to move forward would probably be
3 unwise. There is clearly an objection here to
4 what is being considered by the Planning
5 Board. There are going to be ongoing
6 discussions. There may or may not be a
7 possible resolution. I think in sight of the
8 fact that it's here at this level, that should
9 send a message back to the municipality. I
10 would certainly defer to anyone else's
11 comments.
12 MR. SURENIAN: Attorney for the
13 Borough of Bloomingdale. I'm the attorney for
14 the Borough of Bloomingdale and I've been
15 representing the town in it's Mount Laurel
16 issues for a couple years now. The town's
17 moving forward, trying to solve the Mount
18 Laurel problem. This horse farm issue has
19 become wrapped up in the whole resolution of
20 the town taking the initiative to solve its own
21 problems. I'd like to thank the Office of
22 Smart Growth for the meeting that we had
23 yesterday. Very productive and we welcome the
24 opportunity to sit down and talk and express
25 our concerns. We look forward to continuing
52
1 dialogue as was contemplated by a letter we
2 received along the way inviting us to the
3 table, we've accepted that invitation and we
4 would think that there are things that have
5 come out of that meeting that can make it a
6 better ordinance.
7 We view this as an opportunity as
8 opposed to anything else. Where it ends up, I
9 can't promise you. But we certainly heard some
10 things and took some concerns away from the
11 table in terms of the design, that I think
12 could make this a better ordinance. In view of
13 that, the direction of the Township is going to
14 be -- I don't anticipate that there's going to
15 be any action at the Planning Board tonight.
16 The ordinance was referred to the Planning
17 Board for the standard that was introduced and
18 sent to the Planning Board. I don't anticipate
19 they will act tonight and I don't anticipate we
20 will act as a Borough on May 6.
21 Although, I should tell you so that
22 there's no misunderstanding, when in ordinance
23 was put on track it was always subject to COAH
24 approval. Which meant because of the
25 relationship between the State Planning
53
1 Commission and COAH, we always knew this was a
2 chance that we would have to take along the
3 way.
4 We were never, ever intending to
5 cut out the Office of Smart Growth. What we
6 are intending to propose is a solution. In
7 light of what's happened, instead of adopting
8 Sub 2, we think we can improve the ordinance
9 and possibly achieve a resolution that way.
10 MR. McKENNA: Anyone else from your
11 municipality that would like to add anything?
12 MR. TIERNEY: I think that's what I
13 was addressing to your group a minute ago.
14 These folks have had an opportunity to speak to
15 people and, you know, it's like a football
16 game. It's now 7-0 and I'm not sure that
17 anybody in the opposing group has had an
18 opportunity to have made a presentation to a
19 similar group. Here's an attorney, an
20 articulate, lucid person, well spoken.
21 MR. SURENIAN: Not everyone would
22 agree with you.
23 MR. TIERNEY: You're very
24 convincing. Has had an opportunity to speak
25 and I'm not sure that the other side, whoever
54
1 may be on that side, has had a similar
2 opportunity. Excuse me. Those things should
3 be extended early on. As close to when their
4 group made their presentation as is possible,
5 before it becomes so determined. It's very
6 difficult to change, if indeed it should be
7 changed. That's what I was driving at.
8 MR. McKENNA: If I heard our
9 executive director earlier, it's at least at
10 7-7. Although, their may be more than two
11 fields in the game. My understanding is
12 Skylands was addressed first. In fact, the
13 Office of Smart Growth met with Skylands
14 first. Don't be misled into thinking that the
15 discussion with the municipalities are the only
16 discussions taking place. In fact, the first
17 meeting was with the objector and not the
18 municipality and the second meeting was with
19 the municipality and now there's going to be a
20 third meeting with both parties present. So it
21 sounds to me like 7-8. I'm not the
22 scorekeeper.
23 But that still doesn't preclude us
24 from hearing from anyone else that wants to
25 speak during the public portion of the hearing
55
1 today.
2 MR. BOSWELL: I'm the engineer. I,
3 again, represent the horse farm owner. What
4 opportunity, if any, is there for the owner of
5 the property to speak during the discussion?
6 Do they have a seat at the table?
7 MR. McKENNA: I think, I can't speak
8 for the municipality, I'm sure that the
9 property owners are going to be participating
10 or discussing with the municipality and also at
11 the Municipal Planning Board level, I would
12 suspect, as far as how these issues are
13 addressed. Does that mean that the property
14 owner can't have a seat at the table for the
15 discussions that take place? I think not.
16 Please understand, as we referred
17 to earlier. There will be a subsequent meeting
18 at this Committee level as well as the
19 subsequent meeting of the State Planning
20 Commission before action is actually taken. So
21 I think the owner will have ample opportunity
22 to be heard.
23 MR. BOSWELL: The reason why I say
24 that is because the owner had no opportunity
25 when the designation was originally considered
56
1 for the change from PA2 to 5. No notice of
2 this until it, in fact, was already put on
3 opposed amendment to the plan with no notice
4 whatsoever. And at that time this was a
5 designated green way area, albeit outside town
6 center. The property owner virtually had no
7 notice at all.
8 MR. McKENNA: That was well before
9 our time on this Commission. However, I would
10 suspect any action that would have been taken
11 would have been taken at public meeting. I
12 don't know what, if any, notice was given to
13 the property owner. I don't attempt to address
14 it because we weren't here then.
15 MR. BOSWELL: The only public
16 hearings have occurred in the town, Borough of
17 Bloomingdale or today and he has told you the
18 request that was made, not on behalf of the
19 Borough of Bloomingdale, where we would receive
20 notice by the Bloomingdale Environmental
21 Commission, Skylands CLEAN and whomever else.
22 I'm not aware, but we were not aware of that
23 until we actually were forwarded a copy of the
24 map. And to be advised, we had no notice
25 whatsoever.
57
1 MR. McKENNA: I will tell you as a
2 property owner, before any planning area is
3 altered, the owner is always notified whether
4 or not -- I don't want to speak as to what
5 happened in the past. We weren't here. But
6 that's certainly how it's been, as far as
7 procedurally, in the past, as far as I know.
8 MR. BOSWELL: Only after a draft
9 revision was done.
10 MR. ESKILSON: That's part of rule
11 change we're looking for.
12 MR. McKENNA: We're certainly
13 attempting to amend our rules.
14 MR. ESKILSON: This group is
15 concerned with that issue and is addressing
16 that so that this kind of thing doesn't
17 happen. But, as the Chairman said, we really
18 can't speak to what occurred with the
19 predecessors.
20 MR. McKENNA: We don't want to
21 disagree with you because we don't know.
22 MR. BOSWELL: I recognize everyone's
23 ability to speak on this. I'm not sure at what
24 point that will be. Do we have an opportunity
25 to meet with OSG as an interested party?
58
1 MR. ZELLNER: The answer is yes.
2 MR. PIDDLE: (pho) Jim Piddle.
3 Surenian criticized the commission during the
4 first cross acceptance PA2 and during the
5 center process. We are we also actively
6 involve in it. The centers came up and was
7 actively part of the melt together, open space
8 and environmentally sensitive. This issue came
9 up then and was addressed by Bloomingdale and I
10 think the property owner was at the meeting
11 during the center issue. So, I mean, it's been
12 around. That was one of the action items that
13 comes back from the original center petition
14 and the act by the Commission about this area
15 and having a separation between Wanaque and
16 Bloomingdale. When the Commissioner changed if
17 the area, that was part of the whole Commission
18 working on the center designation for
19 Bloomingdale and wanting to have that
20 separation. So we don't have wall to wall, so
21 you don't have sprawl centers.
22 MISS O'HERN: I have a fax
23 (inaudible). They indicate to the State
24 Planning Commission on the cross acceptance
25 process, they were in favor of this. At the
59
1 time the Borough was not aware of the process.
2 The former chairman, to the process as it was
3 held. We don't need to get into this detail.
4 MR. BOSWELL: This is not an
5 opportunity to debate back and forth.
6 MR. CURBNER: (pho). Ross Curbner
7 representing the Wanaque River Coalition. The
8 concern that I have, I appreciate what you're
9 talking about in terms of the process, bringing
10 all the stakeholders to the table. We
11 attempted to do that with Skylands CLEAN
12 Environmental Groups, to sit down and discuss
13 this. Unfortunately, the Borough walked away
14 from the table. What we hear in the room is
15 very reasonable. What we're seeing in the
16 local level is a pedal to the metal ram rodding
17 through in the zoning changes.
18 What you said as far as the town
19 being unwise may not prevent them from doing
20 it. So kind of a clear message to them to get
21 back to the table.
22 MR. SURENIAN: I don't think it's a
23 clear estimation. I've already told you it's
24 our intention that we view this as an
25 opportunity to make improvements to the
60
1 ordinance based upon what came out of
2 yesterday's meeting and that it's not our
3 intent to put it through at this point in time.
4 Give us an opportunity to incorporate some
5 recommendations that were made and try to
6 enhance the ordinance. So please, you know,
7 it's not necessary for any messages.
8 MR. ZELLNER: You know, to address
9 that. COAH and the Office of Smart Growth
10 stipulate on this. Without the designation,
11 COAH won't accept that without it. It leaves
12 them open. There is a process and we are
13 working very tightly to make sure that the town
14 does want to come forward. Because of that us
15 and COAH -- full circle clear understanding.
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm a
17 Bloomingdale resident. Mr. Surenian says he
18 doesn't anticipate that the Planning Board will
19 take action tonight, but we have no guarantee
20 that they won't. Also, at the last counsel
21 meeting, last public hearing, I believe it was
22 announced that on May 6 there would be a third
23 and final meeting. Then the Mayor and counsel
24 will take a vote. Is there anything to protect
25 the concerned citizens from action being taken
61
1 until the process is satisfied?
2 MR. McKENNA: I am sure that the
3 objector knows what their legal rights are.
4 Number two, we, as a Commission, can't stop the
5 municipality from adopting an ordinance. We
6 have the right from designating them as a
7 center, which is fair. They don't want to have
8 it happen. So recognizing the fact that they
9 have, pardon the expression, but if they ran
10 through an ordinance without listening to the
11 input of the objector and any other concerned
12 parties and then presented it before us, I
13 would think this Commission would act
14 appropriately. Whatever we deem that to be at
15 that point, if you understand the nature of the
16 remark.
17 MS. O'HERN: I'm a little confused.
18 We're kind of all speaking. Is this the
19 portion where I speak now?
20 MR. McKENNA: Why don't you do that.
21 MISS O'HERN: June 12, 02. You two
22 complained regarding proposed (inaudible). It's
23 always been our intent to not preclude any
24 development of this property. Always been
25 willing to work with the (inaudible).
62
1 Reasonable development of this property, but we
2 do feel that what is proposed right now is
3 inappropriate and we still stand by our client
4 and as such we've forwarded a legal document to
5 Michelle Byers, in the Office of Smart Growth
6 recommending that the OSG revoke the center
7 designation of Bloomingdale and communicate
8 this action to all State agencies for
9 consideration. However, after our meeting with
10 Mr. Zellner, it's in everyone's best interest
11 to work with Bloomingdale in any way that we
12 could to try to resolve this issue. Because
13 obviously we are not looking to hurt the
14 Borough of Bloomingdale. We want the best
15 resolution for all concerned.
16 In that vein I would hope that the
17 Committee will respectfully accept our
18 recommendation to form a task force including
19 Skylands CLEAN, the Borough of Bloomingdale and
20 any other interested parties appropriate for
21 that type of discussion and work to resolve
22 that in a fashion agreeable to everyone
23 involved. We are not looking to put any high
24 density development on that property, but we
25 understand the concerns of the Borough as far
63
1 as COAH designation and as far as wanting to
2 develope this development in a sensible
3 manner.
4 So we would condition any movement
5 forward and find meeting with the Borough about
6 the condition that they not move forward with
7 this ordinance. They not continue to hold this
8 hearing on May 6. They not move forward with
9 any planning.
10 MR. McKENNA: I think we heard the
11 municipal attorney speak to that issue and
12 indicate that they were not moving forward at
13 this point in time in conjunction with the
14 earlier request. Not because of you; in
15 conjunction.
16 MISS O'HERN: We'll have the
17 opportunity to be at the next meeting and
18 address it at that time. Thank you.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I want to
20 make a quick point. I happen to live on the
21 other side of the State forest. Practically a
22 stone's throw from the Bloomingdale boarder and
23 I know this area well and I was one of the
24 founders of Skylands CLEAN years ago. This has
25 been a long standing issue, this whole area.
64
1 And part of it really is part of a natural
2 green way. Federal Hill, which is a historic
3 site where I wanted to correct the record.
4 Only American troops were sent and put down
5 rebellion by other American troops and
6 (inaudible) mutiny or Pig Latin was sent up
7 from Morristown by orders on Federal Hill and
8 there's more graves up there. Actually, at the
9 time when, just to go into a little history,
10 there's wonderful letter in the national
11 archives responding from a message from Colonel
12 Freilingheiser (pho) who wrote basically to
13 hang him.
14 Anyway, getting back to the site.
15 Environmentally, it's a sensitive area.
16 There's water supply intakes, Pompton intake
17 for Pasaaic Valley, North Jersey threatened and
18 endangered species. This is an area -- green
19 way maps and the reason the center is pulled
20 back -- originally in this area, became
21 Planning Area 5, is because of the natural
22 resources. It's also linked to Federal Hill,
23 which Bloomingdale, to their credit, is trying
24 to correct the administration before them. And
25 one of the things I hope Bloomingdale does in
65
1 this practice is, because a lot of this is
2 second round COAH numbers that we're looking
3 at, since they got the second round numbers,
4 applied for certification. They have actually
5 acquired a lot of open space, changed areas
6 from growth to non-growth. Should be looking
7 at COAH to look at adjustment. They resolved
8 some of this issue at the time they got the
9 original COAH numbers back in the early '90s.
10 Based on a lot more growth and then they are
11 actually going to get what really should be
12 looked at from the State Planning.
13 Specifically, this is one of the places.
14 That's why you have a center. The
15 growth should be put into the center, not the
16 environment. Natural buffer in between Wanaque
17 and Bloomingdale and not spending money for
18 sidewalks a half mile out to Bloomingdale to
19 make you walk. That's not going to happen. No
20 town's willing to have that happen. It's
21 infrastructure for the next town and I think
22 that the State Planning Commission needs to
23 look very hard at the issue and work with
24 Bloomingdale to come up with an alternative
25 site. That's been my criticism, as you well
66
1 know. Without protecting the environment, you
2 get no transfer and then you really have
3 nothing but high density.
4 MR. McKENNA: Anyone else?
5 MR. CAPASUCA: (pho) John Capasuca.
6 Farmer, Environmental Commission Chairman in
7 Bloomingdale. Trustee of association, New
8 Jersey trustee (inaudible). I want to thank
9 you all for your efforts to prevent sprawl,
10 especially on Federal Hill and the horse farm
11 in Bloomingdale. I want to let you know that
12 there were a lot of people involved in
13 obtaining that PA5. I had worked several years
14 on that. I didn't want to debate about it. I
15 did discuss it with the owners and working for
16 PA5 at the time, we worked on a binder which I
17 want to present to you in case your records
18 don't have the original application with all
19 the Mylars and documentations allowed for the
20 PA5 designation and NRI, which I'd like for you
21 to have as well as executive summery, which I
22 authored.
23 On the horse farm specifically,
24 regarding Wanaque, what Jeff just said is very
25 inappropriate and erroneous of inclusionary
67
1 zones and COAH sites on PA5 land. This is the
2 case with the horse farm. I spoke with Maureen
3 Foleway (pho) and described the situation. Yes
4 indeed, COAH would not want their units on this
5 particular site. And I feel that, as with
6 Federal Hill had to fight through Planning
7 Board and applications builder's remedies, it's
8 very inappropriate. We do all we can to nip
9 this in the bud. I want to now submit
10 information so you have it on the record and--
11 MR. SURENIAN: Any submissions to
12 this body, I would respectfully submit that the
13 Borough has a right to copies of whatever is
14 submitted. Whatever you're submitting, I'd
15 like a copy of so I can look at it and know
16 what you have.
17 MR. McKENNA: Not only the Borough,
18 certainly Skylands, if they don't already have
19 a copy and if Jeff or anybody else, any other
20 interested organization would want a copy, I'm
21 sure we'd be happy to provide it. If you don't
22 mind, hold the stuff until after the meeting.
23 MR. ZELLNER: I was going to say, if
24 the public comment is over at this point, I
25 wanted Robin and Skylands CLEAN, also the town
68
1 and I think together along with the folks from
2 COAH, I think the comment was would obligation
3 in a Planning Area 5 with the Office of Smart
4 Growth be working with them, because I do think
5 that there is room for compromise. We can work
6 together on this. I think that both Skylands
7 CLEAN and the town want to make sure they don't
8 leave themselves open for a suit and all of us
9 recognized partners and we can work together on
10 this.
11 We can do both, protect the
12 environment and inherent protections to the
13 town so that it meets an affordable housing
14 obligation and a future builder's remedy
15 lawsuit that will damage the town and Skylands.
16 I thank everybody for coming
17 together. Over the next two weeks, we'll sit
18 down as a body and work on a resolution here at
19 the next PIC to announce that resolution.
20 MR. McKENNA: I don't think COAH has
21 ever been more responsive. Thank you, Maureen,
22 for her efforts in addressing the concerns of
23 this overlap where we've had sites
24 pre-designated as areas where affordable
25 housing needs are to be addressed and yet they
69
1 need to be environmental sensitive. She's gone
2 to great lengths at COAH to ensure that we
3 don't have that dichotomy and certainly I know
4 that you've been dealing with Adam on this
5 particular issue as well as the municipality.
6 It sounds like there should be an intelligent
7 resolution reached that will satisfy everyone
8 and I hope that such a resolution will come
9 before us.
10 MR. ESKILSON: What's happening is
11 exactly what's supposed to happen. State
12 agencies working together and interested
13 parties in coming to a solution that makes
14 sense so that we don't have a situation like
15 last year, State funds spent for inclusionary
16 housing. By doing what we're doing today,
17 we're getting away from that and coming to
18 reasonable solutions.
19 MR. FISHER: Just an observation. I
20 don't want the affordable housing component to
21 be lost in the shuffle. I realize COAH at the
22 table -- it's always difficult concerting when
23 you hear inclusionary. Mount Laurel housing
24 sites either acquired by State funds or open
25 space are not in the right election in the
70
1 first place. For whatever reason, that
2 resulted in the demise of those properties. I
3 think we can't lost sight of the fact that we
4 need the town to address it's Mount Laurel
5 obligation. I know that you refer to it as
6 Mount Laurel problem. I hope it's not viewed
7 that way in the discussions. I encourage the
8 group to continue to work on affordable
9 housing.
10 MR. SURENIAN: If I might address
11 the Committee. The town has done that. Hasn't
12 waited for any developer to put a gun to its
13 head. It came to COAH. We've got this hole in
14 our plan. Here's how we want to try to solve
15 it. Either this way or some alternative way.
16 We didn't wait for some developer to come bang
17 on our door or receive one of those lovely
18 letters from Henry Hill. Let the record be
19 absolutely clear on that. We're solving our
20 own problems and not waiting for the developer
21 to sue us.
22 MR. McKENNA: Anybody else?
23 MISS FOLEWAY: (pho). We certainly
24 are working with respect to the understanding
25 that we have with the Office of Smart Growth.
71
1 Inclusionary development can not happen in a
2 PA5 unless it's in the center. That is our
3 principale that we're working by. We are at
4 the table and we are working very closely with
5 the Office of Smart Growth.
6 MR. McKENNA: Thank you. Anyone
7 else?
8 MISS FRY: Wilma Fry. I've come
9 here to represent the Skylands Coalition, which
10 has about 80 organizations in New Jersey and 20
11 to 30 active member organizations. Also
12 specifically representing New Jersey
13 Conservation Foundation. We came here
14 basically to support Skylands CLEAN and to
15 basically ask that if the town moves forward
16 and if these negotiations go through, that the
17 OSG revoke the center designation. That the
18 alternative of including this site in the
19 center, we do not think is an acceptable
20 alternative. That the center should not be
21 expanded to include the site just do make the
22 rules work. Thank you.
23 MR. BOSWELL: Again, I'd like copies
24 of anything that's submitted, please.
25 MR. McKENNA: On the way out, let us
72
1 know.
2 MR. BOSWELL: I also request an
3 opportunity to meet in Committee forum similar
4 to Skylands CLEAN as well as the Borough.
5 MR. McKENNA: Thank you. Anyone
6 else? Well, now we have the public comment
7 section. If there's anyone that wanted to
8 address this Committee on any issue other than
9 those that we just addressed, this would be
10 your opportunity to do so.
11 MS. ASHMAN: Candace Ashman.
12 Representing myself. Are you going to have a
13 session on the rule or should I comment on that
14 rule at the moment?
15 MR. ZELLNER: Yeah.
16 MS. ASHMAN: One other question that
17 deals with the issue of the map amendments.
18 The State planned map amendments, the process
19 you were talking about, will that process be
20 based on the criteria in the existing plan? I
21 mean, the map is a statement of the policies of
22 the plan as they are applied according to the
23 criteria for mapping. Do a criteria for each
24 planning area -- when you start using all this
25 data, you're using the criteria in the existing
73
1 plan?
2 MR. ZELLNER: Yes. In the existing
3 plan. Right now, again, I need to talk to the
4 State agencies. We will look at what DEP gives
5 us to make sure that there are no significant
6 changes in criteria.
7 MS. ASHMAN: Because otherwise you
8 need to wait until after cross acceptance.
9 MR. ZELLNER: This is still in
10 discussion. We need to see exactly what comes
11 back, giving the Department a deadline to the
12 end of the summer. That gives the Departments,
13 we believe, enough time to go out and make sure
14 that they have had the public meetings, data
15 corrected and in a format that we can see it
16 and we want the public comments. That will
17 help this body as it prepares to go out for
18 cross acceptance.
19 MS. ASHMAN: Good. Let's say the
20 data for DEP's, for instance, layer is a layer
21 that is not in the criteria. Most of them are
22 not. I'm worried about that. But you end up in
23 a situation where you're amending the map, but
24 not amending the map. You're not meeting the
25 criteria in the plan. I wondered how you were
74
1 going to say that to people when go out with
2 this map.
3 MR. ZELLNER: First and foremost,
4 I'll wait before we comment on that to get the
5 data back. I can't comment on what I haven't
6 seen yet. I need to see exactly what comes
7 back. Most of the criteria there, we're going
8 to be well covered until I see the actual data
9 coming our way. Once that comes in, we'll look
10 at the process to see where we're going to make
11 adjustments critical to set a time line to look
12 at what comes in and then set a clear agenda
13 going forward. Because clearly I've heard from
14 John who talks to a lot of folks and David that
15 there's a lot of confusion about the process
16 for counties and municipal government, and how
17 folks are going to have a say in this process.
18 I think there's a lot of fear and
19 part of that was, you know, in reaction to, I
20 guess, DEP map and folks got very upset. We
21 want to make sure that we explain there is a
22 clear process, once we've got that data back,
23 here's how all of you from the public is going
24 to interact with the map change, our policies
25 and the map. I need to get the data back, then
75
1 we announce the process so the world
2 understands what the process is, so there's no
3 confusion.
4 MISS ASHMAN: You're planning to
5 take the map to cross acceptance?
6 MR. ZELLNER: I'm planning to take
7 the map along with additional data layers that
8 the Department is going to provide.
9 MISS ASHMAN: I'm trying to get
10 un-confused, too. I think it's critical that
11 you maintain this graphical description of the
12 plan in the map and you don't get the map
13 confused with the actual plan.
14 MR. ZELLNER: We will not.
15 Although, it could happen and it has in the
16 past. There's two issues. Certainly we know
17 that a map draws a lot of authentication,
18 whether or not policies back it up. We're in a
19 good year for proof of that. We need to make
20 sure that we have graphically represented to
21 the towns and counties in a map what priorities
22 the State plan and the this new data comes in.
23 Judging from that we will look at, what that
24 map says relative to our policies, and what
25 that would need to be changed in the cross
76
1 acceptance process. That's all part of
2 discussion we would have with our county,
3 municipal and legislative partners in this.
4 One step at a time. Since everybody recognizes
5 this day of even color newspapers, maps tend to
6 get a lot of attention.
7 MISS ASHMAN: For the purposes of
8 the initial go around that you plan to have,
9 that's when the confusion is going to exist.
10 What exactly are you talking about? I don't
11 mean you have to answer that right now, this
12 minute. That's going to be the issue when you
13 go out there as a State Planning Commission.
14 Have a look at this map before you're going to
15 cross acceptance. It's very confusing for
16 people.
17 MR. ZELLNER: We think we're going
18 to be successful at communicating what it is.
19 We're going to try.
20 MISS ASHMAN: Not get involved in
21 the micro -- we'll all try to help you.
22 MR. McKENNA: We'll take any help we
23 can get. Anyone else? If not, if we don't
24 have anything else, I'd like to end. Take a
25 motion to adjourn.
77
1 MR. FISHER: No more discussion on
2 the proposed rule changes. What we were saying
3 beyond what you and Bill already talked about.
4 MISS ASHMAN: I'm lost in this
5 agenda.
6 MR. ZELLNER: We started on this
7 this morning.
8 MR. PURDIE: I don't know if you
9 want Vanessa to go through anything on the
10 comments on the 2003 Rule.
11 MS. FISHBEIN: I think that would
12 be helpful. I brought up the issue. Any
13 further direction or suggestions that they may
14 have before the new comment deadline comes
15 especially regarding map amendments and so
16 forth.
17 MR. ZELLNER: I thought when I had
18 walked in that was the conversation.
19 MR. McKENNA: Can you do that in a
20 succinct manner?
21 MISS MORIN: As you know, the rule
22 extension is until May 21 and what I prepared
23 for the 2003 to date is discussion of possible
24 changes that we want to make to the existing
25 2003 adoption. And, in general, I also
78
1 provided you with a copy of all the comments
2 that we've had to date. Hopefully, if the
3 league will provide a comment by May 21 and the
4 whole entire comment period, the two changes
5 that we're possibly making is regarding the
6 suspension of the rules and some discussion on
7 that. There was a comment regarding
8 distribution of information for map amendments,
9 8.3(a) and 8.5(d), and we made some changes
10 towards that. That's it for the 2003 Rule that
11 I can address at this point. Does anybody have
12 any questions?
13 MR. FISHER: We saw this this
14 morning. The comment letters weren't part of
15 the earlier package. So, no. I don't have any
16 additional comments at this point.
17 MR. McKENNA: Anyone from the
18 public?
19 MR. KIRKOFF: (pho) Don Kirkoff.
20 New Jersey Conservation Foundation. One of the
21 things there's confused about is what is going
22 to be a preliminary plan and we may have
23 gathered several suggestions, how you do that?
24 We don't get an answer. We don't get a
25 response. One of the disputes that came to
79
1 mind is cross acceptance, you have letters of
2 agreement and disagreement. I wish you'd write
3 us a letter for agreement and disagreement.
4 When you say something, we don't hear an
5 answer. And I remember the last cross
6 acceptance, all the pain we went through
7 because we chose to rewrite the plan and it
8 would just be nice to know where you're coming
9 from in that we don't get a response and I'd
10 like to understand that.
11 MR. ZELLNER: I can address that.
12 We have not responded yet because, this is from
13 my opening dialogue, we have not gotten all the
14 data.
15 MR. KIRKOFF: Can I comment on that?
16 I came late. Your agenda is really -- you have
17 an agenda and plan, and then you discuss what I
18 want to hear about before I get here. Because
19 based on this--
20 MR. ZELLNER: I apologize that we
21 came off of agenda. There were some schedule
22 changes and we wanted to make sure all the
23 folks dealing with the issues we had to before
24 we talked about the issues. We did so on the
25 cuff and there was an adjustment. Once we have
80
1 the data layers from the different departments
2 and we are hoping that, as you probably see DEP
3 map comes down and dealing with public comments
4 now. Again, what the Agriculture comprise,
5 their comments. Once we have a picture of what
6 those data layers look like, how we can
7 incorporate, including that what you have given
8 to us relative to that. That's the process.
9 We didn't want to make a comment
10 prior to getting the information from the
11 departments. It's premature. We don't know
12 what policy issues need to be looked at
13 relevant to that information. So that once we
14 have it we can make an informed decision about
15 the process. How difficult is it going to be.
16 What are the different departments looking at.
17 What policies have changed as a result of new
18 environmental data, new infrastructure. To get
19 a first picture and take all the work to
20 incorporate all the changes we can. I don't
21 want to jump ahead and get new data and say I
22 made a mistake and I do think that there may be
23 confusion. I don't want people to think --
24 based on my calls and questions, historically,
25 going through all the stuff that everybody has
81
1 submitted to us and for some of the people,
2 questions continue to work aggressively. I
3 don't want to come forward and make a decision
4 and come to the Commission and say sorry, we
5 didn't understand all the data. We need to
6 make a different decision.
7 MR. McKENNA: Based on simply the
8 questions this morning, but also the questions
9 that all of us get. For example, I had a very
10 intelligent, well known developer call me
11 yesterday and said I heard that on May 1 I
12 can't build, and I'm dead serious. That was
13 the question. Perhaps we can just come out
14 with this process, a statement of this process,
15 and issue it and have it on our website so that
16 everybody understands. If we can give people a
17 ready answer, a great approach that's been
18 discussed here and by the full Commission seems
19 logical and reasonable and perhaps the most
20 intelligent method of addressing this that has
21 ever been done. Spell that out in some format
22 so that people will understand. I think that
23 will be a big help.
24 MR. ZELLNER: Our hope is by the May
25 21 Planning Commission meeting that we will
82
1 have something formal and Tim will be
2 announcing tentative outlines from the
3 Commission and take that as public document to
4 the world so everybody has one play book.
5 MR. McKENNA: Anyone else?
6 MISS ASHMAN: That's been how we've
7 been communicating with the Office of Smart
8 Planning. I wanted to thank Vanessa and Bill
9 in particular for sitting around for three
10 hours the other day. I do think that there is
11 one issue and I haven't had time to read this.
12 One of the issues that came up during that
13 discussion when you do the infrastructure
14 assessment needs, it strikes me from past
15 experience and other places also that you can't
16 really do that until you have something to do
17 it on. If you put it out in the preliminary
18 plan, you have thrown out all of it. It bottoms
19 out the process that is supposed to produce the
20 policies in the plan. It's the policies in the
21 plan and as they're reflected in the map that
22 is going to control the infrastructure needs
23 assessment. So I think you need it for the
24 impact assessment, not for the preliminary
25 plans.
83
1 In several places it says
2 infrastructure assessment, I would suggest the
3 terrible, terrible process, you might want to
4 spend the time to give yourself the time and
5 put it in with the interim plan which you get
6 to the interim plan. And the other place,
7 strangely enough, I agree with the New Jersey
8 builders to put all public notice process and
9 everything in one section and then just refer
10 to it as in that section. Because then you
11 really know what a public meeting is or isn't.
12 And we have a problem that we
13 discussed at long length to do with the when
14 having a municipality, having, you know, who is
15 representing something to you from the
16 municipal or county level. If they indeed got
17 on board before they arrived on the scene or
18 are you going to have them, as they do
19 frequently, come in with something and then
20 somebody hears about it later. Instead of
21 having not just what the rule now says, a
22 continuation, like adopted at a public
23 meeting. Everyone here who's ever been at the
24 municipal public meeting, not necessarily the
25 agenda is clear to everybody, so that they
84
1 don't show up. So I think putting them all in
2 one section might make it much easier. As I
3 say, thanks for listening.
4 MR. McKENNA: I see heads nodding.
5 That is a good sign. Anyone else?
6 MISS MORIN: Open up for the 2003.
7 I didn't know if anyone wanted to say saying.
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's so hard
9 to hear.
10 MR. HARRISON: Onto 2003. If
11 members of the Committee have comments before
12 the 21, they have to move quickly with the rule
13 adoption. If you have thoughts on different
14 responses, get them to Vanessa in the next
15 couple weeks. That would be very helpful.
16 MISS MORIN: I actually prepared a
17 comment response section for that kind of
18 discussion. I know that the Subcommittee,
19 there was Michelle and Dave and I don't know if
20 they needed to meet at the SPC meeting or
21 before the meetings. I can have the rule
22 adoption adopted by the PIC on the May 28
23 meeting. Also for the rule proposal for 2004.
24 The only thing that I want to comment on is a
25 memo that I wrote, there as a lot of comments
85
1 in 2003 comment period regarding some changes
2 we're making. So instead of addressing them in
3 an informal sort of statement, 2003 public
4 comments, I addressed them and made the changes
5 of 2004 Rule proposal. Basically what there is
6 a couple memos that I've gotten from Barbara
7 and me regarding also Candy's suggestions and
8 so you can kind of take all those memos that I
9 have and the one that as of April 28, 2003 as
10 being the final version of all the different
11 types of versions and other subsequent rule
12 changes are all here.
13 And I guess the one thing that's
14 critical is looking at the definition section.
15 I've highlighted ones that are sort of critical
16 in terms of policy that we're going to be doing
17 in the next round of cross acceptance and how
18 we're streamlining that.
19 The other thing has to do with
20 being assured where we keep the public comment
21 and public participation, made that clear at
22 1.6. Candy addressed the infrastructure needs
23 assessment. Information that I've highlighted
24 might need to be discussed in sort of where we
25 want it, how that is presented in the rules.
86
1 And the last thing that is
2 critical, I think, for our purposes is to look
3 at letters of clarification. When we were
4 sitting with Candy, she'd suggested putting in
5 a requirement in there. I played around with
6 doing that and came up with a situation where I
7 wasn't really sure we can provide adequate
8 notice design guidelines as part of the State
9 plan. How I do notice 566 municipalities, 21
10 counties of our decision? If they have got
11 that looking at the letters of clarification,
12 how we're doing it is kind of critical.
13 MR. FISHER: For that purpose.
14 MISS MORIN: I know that there was
15 several at the beginning stage, for example, of
16 first cross acceptance letters that came for
17 clarification for policies that we were
18 discussing, not really changing other policies
19 substantially. Do we need to still have the
20 letters of clarification and if we do, then
21 saying in 6.1, which would be suggesting to
22 delete that. It wouldn't be an A anymore. The
23 one as of April 28. Page 25, the OAL style.
24 MR. FISHER: When some things are
25 bold under the shading and some aren't, what's
87
1 the distinction?
2 MISS MORIN: Anything in bold is
3 being added. Anything in brackets is being
4 deleted. The January 5 shows everything and
5 the highlighting was just for Page 21, January
6 5. As of April 28, 2003, these are the things
7 that I've identified as being sort of
8 critical. There was a particular comment
9 referring to State Development Plan as being a
10 useful guide. I was suggesting to delete the
11 word useful or maybe making another statement
12 and that was the last critical thing that I
13 wanted to bring up.
14 MR. McKENNA: Anybody have any
15 questions or comments?
16 MISS MORIN: How about deleting that
17 section?
18 MR. ESKILSON: I don't feel that
19 strongly about it.
20 MR. FISHER: Especially if you're
21 going to use them as a means by which to alert
22 people to changes as opposed to if additionally
23 they have been used by interested people to get
24 a clarification on the plan. But, you know,
25 maybe that's a new twist that would be useful.
88
1 One thing on the letters of clarification, I
2 know you deleted monthly reports. I don't
3 think there is a need for monthly reports. I
4 would use the word periodic, so there's some
5 reporting rather than just an adjective.
6 MR. McKENNA: Okay. Anybody else
7 have anything? Anyone from the public?
8 MISS KRATINA: (pho) Loretta Kratina
9 Somerset County Planning. One observation.
10 It's difficult to evaluate the new efficiencies
11 that will be added into the cross acceptance
12 process as the new amendments show, without
13 knowing what the actual substantive process and
14 work requirements are. I.E., the guidelines
15 that are in the handbook of the cross
16 acceptance. We have a whole new realm of
17 technology that is available to us that is
18 going to assist counties and municipalities in
19 performing cross acceptance. Those tools are
20 evenly available to all municipalities and to
21 all counties all at different levels and if
22 they are the standards that are articulated in
23 the cross acceptance guide or handbook, they're
24 going to be very important in terms of the
25 county or municipality in terms of the kinds of
89
1 resources and time and effort that we're going
2 to have to put into cross acceptance.
3 Really, looking at it now, you
4 can't judge what the impacts are in terms of
5 our ability to perform cross acceptance and
6 make a commitment to be in negotiations or
7 fully streamlining approach that these changes
8 are supposed to accomplish without the
9 handbook. Would it be responsible to show
10 these in part?
11 MR. HARRISON: The answer is yes.
12 The authority to get the rule proposal going so
13 it can be adopted in time for the start of the
14 cross acceptance process. We really do need to
15 move that ahead now so that the State Planning
16 Commission can propose it at the June meeting.
17 While the rule is out for public comment, we
18 should have the cross acceptance out there so
19 they can look at the manual, look at the rule,
20 see if they fit together and look at the rule
21 with knowledge of what's in it.
22 MISS KRATINA: You're saying it's
23 the June SPC meeting?
24 MR. HARRISON: That' the time we're
25 aiming for in order to get it done in order for
90
1 the start of cross acceptance next March.
2 MISS KRATINA: The other question
3 that comes to mind is related to the
4 infrastructure needs assessment. In
5 particular, trying to do it in Somerset County.
6 There's two pieces to it. A before and after
7 piece, so-to-speak. We really compile the
8 information about systems capacity during the
9 primary planning stages. It's really important
10 to know capacity before you can answer, and
11 what else you're going to need to add to that
12 capacity. If you do the needs piece, the needs
13 assessment piece, in the interim planning
14 process, that makes a lot of sense and also
15 having the support up front. Knowing that the
16 preliminary plan is going to inform that
17 process. That's it.
18 MR. McKENNA: Thank you. Anyone
19 else?.
20 MR. FISHER: Just on 3.7 of the
21 proposal. When we were talking about this is
22 where the regional and State do the cross
23 acceptance process instead of what we used to
24 call the comparison stage on Page 16 there. We
25 talk about the fact, the SDRP shall be
91
1 distributed to all regional agencies and shall
2 be requested to supply the Commission within
3 three months, would it be appropriate at this
4 juncture in the regular rulings or somewhere to
5 indicate that the need for kind of financial
6 regulatory incentives that the State agencies
7 offer should be clearly articulated? That's a
8 concern of yours, John. And it would be
9 helpful, I think, to be able to make that clear
10 that, you know, for the purpose of providing
11 meaningful endorsements for local and regional
12 compliance with the State plan to advance the
13 goals and objectives of the plan that these
14 financial and regulatory incentives be spelled
15 out. And I don't know if this is the right
16 spot, but it could be and maybe there's a more
17 appropriate spot, but I wanted to make that
18 comment.
19 MISS MORIN: We explained in the
20 aspects in my older one, we had made State and
21 regional separate. We were saying the same
22 thing here. So I'd have to think about it.
23 MR. ZELLNER: It's a good
24 suggestion.
25 MR. FISHER: One comment on your
92
1 April 10 memo regarding plan endorsements on
2 7.9. The first section says acceptance
3 provided under planned endorsement of any
4 municipal plan for six years and county,
5 regional plan shall be for ten years and then
6 you deleted or until readoption of the State
7 plan, whichever comes first. I think there's a
8 change; correct?
9 MISS MORIN: Yes.
10 MR. FISHER: I was afraid if you
11 didn't make that the State plan we enact could
12 come up too quickly. No incentives for people
13 to do anything. That's a good change. The
14 next section, approved prior to January, 2002
15 as a bench mark here. Why that date?
16 MISS MORIN: The rule that we were
17 working on was the current rule, yes.
18 MR. FISHER: It might be helpful to
19 move that to the end of the sentence. It seems
20 awkward where it's approvals of endorsed plans
21 approved prior to January 7. It's kind of
22 confusing to me.
23 MR. McKENNA: Anyone else? Anyone
24 else with questions or comments. Motion to
25 adjourn?
93
1 MR. FISHER: So moved.
2 MR. ESKILSON: Second.
3 (The hearing concluded at 11:40 a.m.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings
5 and evidence are contained fully and accurately
6 in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the
7 foregoing matter on April 30, 2003, and that
8 this is a correct transcript of same.
9
10
11
12
13 __________________________________
14 Linda Mahoney
Court Reporter
15
16
17
18
19
20 (The foregoing certification of this
21 transcript does not apply to any reproduction
22 of the same by any means unless under the
23 direct control and/or supervision of the
24 certifying reporter.)
25